Elections

Do you support completing the Mid-Peninsula Highway? Why or why not?

Responses to the question: "Do you support completing the Mid-Peninsula Highway? Why or why not?"

← Back to Election Page

In This Page:

21 Candidate Responses (top)

Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale
CandidateBrief ResponseFull Response
Erik Coverdale No Proposals for new highways including the Mid-Peninsula Highway are based on inflated congestion numbers and an assumption that future growth will follow a business as usual model. There has been no provision for re-thinking how we will move in the future and what these roads will do to the greenbelt and our rural communities. Just building our way out of congestion through expansion of the road system simply does not work and will not be cost effective. The consequences of urban sprawl, that will follow new highways, on our rural landscape will be devastating. We need to focus on transit-oriented development in our urban communities and creating livable communities that reduce the need to travel. The green party supports making transit, walking, and cycling more desirable alternatives to the use of automobiles, reducing the need for additional road capacity.
Glenn Langton No I Do not support that project, for the same reasons as I gave in my other responses due to budgetary concerns and bureaucratic / infrastructure concerns. I also feel that maximizing the existing secondary routes with small bypasses, lane additions, utilizing rail, air and shipping, would be a better and more cost effective solution to reducing the traffic flow on the major arteries.
Robert Maton Maybe The Liberals have put a hold on this project for 20 years, while the Conservatives want to build the Fort Erie-Hamilton Airport stretch as soon as feasible. The people of Flamborough are not in favour of this project because it would drive a major route through their farms and disrupt their rural community. Its location on the escarpment would also affect green space and cause environmental damage. The Mid-Pen would also lend support to development of the St. Mary's Quarry close to the 401, which could disrupt rural communities as well, and present environmental challenges. Meanwhile, however, Toronto is gridlocked by over development, while Hamilton, just a few miles away, needs development and industrial opportunities. This writer has talked about a vision of Hamilton like that of Pittsburgh, which successfully made the transition from heavy industry to manufacturing, health care, education, and high technologies 30 years ago. Because of the legitimate concerns of citizens along its proposed route, I believe the Mid-Pen should be put on hold while other options are explored. If other options are patently not feasible, then the Mid Pen should be brought back for further discussion.
Ted McMeekin No We've been hearing a lot about the proposed Mid-Penn Highway recently. I want to be clear about where I stand on the issue. I stand with my community.

I stand with those trying to preserve farmland and greenspace. I stand with those that do not want to see their family and friends displaced. I stand with those that do not want to see millions of more vehicles come through our community every year.

Quite frankly, Tim Hudak is planning on bringing a multi-billion dollar super-highway through our backyards. This is plan that could very well be up to ten lanes wide and could materialize as a toll road.

We remember the 407 debacle: hundreds of millions of dollars invested in a new, multi-lane highway just to see it sold off at fire-sale prices to a multi-national company.

The result is exorbitant tolls for motorists. Let's not take that road again.

This plan could see millions of acres of prime farmland and greenspace paved. It could also see hundreds, if not thousands, of homes displaced. A new super highway would see millions of cars roar through our community every day, with little economic benefit to our local businesses. I won't let this happen!

What I support is a practical transportation network that works for Flamborough. The Ministry of Transportation has concluded that another highway artery in this area is not needed. Tim Hudak's position is irresponsible and reckless: the Mid-Peninsula highway is not needed.
Trevor Westerhoff No The NDP's first priority for reducing congestion is to make transit more accessible and affordable to Ontarians. Second, we believe we can make much more efficient use of highways - for example, by speeding up the planned implementation of high-occupancy vehicle lanes. There may be cases where the expansion and extension of highways is necessary, but all cost-effective and environmentally preferable options should be explored first - something we believe the Liberal government has failed to do. Historically, we have raised concern about planned highway expansions that threaten the Greenbelt, such as the Bradford by-pass, the GTA West highway to Guelph, and the Mid-Peninsula highway. We will continue to raise those concerns in the future.
Hamilton Centre
CandidateBrief ResponseFull Response
Andrea Horwath No The NDP's first priority for reducing congestion is to make transit more accessible and affordable to Ontarians. Second, we believe we can make much more efficient use of highways - for example, by speeding up the planned implementation of high-occupancy vehicle lanes. There may be cases where the expansion and extension of highways is necessary, but all cost-effective and environmentally preferable options should be explored first - something we believe the Liberal government has failed to do. Historically, we have raised concern about planned highway expansions that threaten the Greenbelt, such as the Bradford by-pass, the GTA West highway to Guelph, and the Mid-Peninsula highway. We will continue to raise those concerns in the future.
Christopher Lawson Maybe I have not seen the plans for this highway. I can imagine possible pros and cons that I would like answered before making a commitment on this issue. Will it increase commerce sufficiently to cover its costs? Budgets are tight, but I suspect that it would more than pay for itself in the long run. Can we afford the short run costs right now? What type of properties, watersheds, ecosystems, etc. would be affected and how would they be affected? I would love to see the environmental studies on this plan.
Michael Baldasaro Yes Yes I do. Like it or not, highways are what moves us and gridlock demands something be done.
Peter Ormond No Pave over Paradise and call it a parking lot? No way. Why are we so obsessed with pavement? I called it today's black plague.

The proposed highway is eliminating precious farmland. It's no wonder that many community groups are opposed to the mid-pen highway. To pave over this land simply to create more space for cars and thereby spur supposed "economic development" would be a very large mistake and completely ignore the opposition of the community.

This all part of the Hamilton Aerotropolis agenda that has been pushed forward for decades. One main driver of the mid-pen is the Chairman of Tradeport, the private company operating Hamilton Airport - Ron Foxcroft - who interestingly enough also owns a trucking company and lives in Burlington! Another promoter is Richard Koroscil, head of Tradeport, the company that operates Hamilton Airport. Interestingly enough, Mr. Koroscil is Hamilton's representative on the Metrolinx board member. The Greens would call for an immediate investigation into Hamilton's airport including all board members, land holdings, transactions, business interests, and conflicts of interest of the various parties involved. I'm puzzled as to why none of Hamilton's current MP's or MPP's have been speaking out against this outdated mega-transport project that is seriously hurting the quality of life for Hamilton's citizens.

Another issue to review is the fact that airplanes are flying over the city as part of the airport's 24 hour operation. I imagine that the flight path likely specifies a route that skirts the downtown core so that hundreds of thousands aren't disturbed in their sleep each night. This will be another aspect of the review.

We're now in an era of new perspectives on car ownership. I personally haven't had a car for over a year. We use Hamilton CarShare when necessary. You can rent by the half hour, and the savings are huge. Besides no car to scrape off every morning, it's really made us resort to community building modes of transportation - like walking and biking.

The Mid-Pen? No way. Let's build transportation infrastructure that will benefit the community - like LRT and improved GO / VIA links. To reach this point, though, we'll have to delve into and dissect the decades-long shroud of secrecy surrounding Hamilton's Aerotropolis project, and other projects that benefit a few at the expense of the community.
Robert Kuhlmann No Why not let those affected, the electorate vote on it and decide whether or not they want the highway? What right does the government have to reach into the pockets of the people they are supposed to be protecting and extract money from them without their consent to build something (also without their consent) that they never wanted in the first place? Answer: absolutely none! It's called theft! If a private citizen did that, they would be arrested! Government should be subject to to the same laws as every individual citizen is. To do otherwise is a mockery of justice. Government has no right being in the construction business in the first place! The purpose of government is to PROTECT people from the initiation of aggressive force by others, not to initiate it by using its power to forcibly extract funds from the citizenry at the threat of incarceration if they don't comply. However, due to the vast scope of such a project, IF the electorate votes in favour of such a project and IF the same electorate votes in favour of having the government oversee the bidding and tending of contracts for the project, in order to protect the taxpayers from fraud and deception, that I have no problem with.. as long as it is mandated by the voters and the voters still get the final say on which companies get the contract to build the highway. It's their money, they have a right to decide how it's spent.
Hamilton East-Stoney Creek
CandidateBrief ResponseFull Response
Bob Green Innes No As outlined in my LRT answer, now is not the time to undertake major capital expenditures. Letting Ontario debt, already at $250bn, balloon to some unimaginable height in hopes of a currency default is sheer madness but that is exactly what many Western policymakers seem to be doing.

From a broader perspective, the question might be rephrased as - should Ontario destroy and put pressure on thousands of acres of prime farmland to enhance opportunities for a few developers? Should subsidized highways be encouraged instead of tax paying railroads? I believe the answer to these should be no. Building highways just encourages unsustainable sprawl at a time when our ability to produce more cheap oil is being strained to the limit, especially by developing economies. We must adjust to these new realities. The time for humble honesty is at hand.
Mark Cripps Maybe I believe residents in the area's affected by the proposed expansion deserve to have the biggest say in whether or not this highway moves forward. Almost everything we buy and consume is transported by trucks.
Paul Miller No The NDP's first priority for reducing congestion is to make transit more accessible and affordable to Ontarians. Second, we believe we can make much more efficient use of highways - for example, by speeding up the planned implementation of high-occupancy vehicle lanes. There may be cases where the expansion and extension of highways is necessary, but all cost-effective and environmentally preferable options should be explored first - something we believe the Liberal government has failed to do. Historically, we have raised concern about planned highway expansions that threaten the Greenbelt, such as the Bradford by-pass, the GTA West highway to Guelph, and the Mid-Peninsula highway. We will continue to raise those concerns in the future.
W. Peter Randall No No I do not support the Mid Pen Highway, highways and additional lanes are not the way to our future. We cannot keep adding more lanes and more cars. We must reduce our dependence on ever scarcer fossil fuels that are congesting our planet.

More trucking needs to be moved back to rail as does more commuter traffic. HOV lanes are a start and it is fabulous to see this in the Burl-Oakville corridor now but seamless, affordable, timely GO Transit where one can work downtown Hamilton from Mississauga, Grimsby, Stoney Creek or Vineland is the answer.
Hamilton Mountain
CandidateBrief ResponseFull Response
Hans Wienhold No As stated above, I do not think the government should be involved in the transportation business. Therefore I do not support the building of any more roads or highways, anywhere by government.

As a compromise measure however, I would be favourable to a complete democratization of the issue. In other words, if some voters want the highway then they should also be willing to pay for it. Those who do not want it should not be forced to.

I would therefore support mailing a survey to every Ontario taxpayer asking them whether they support the highway or not. Then I would develop two separate Ontario tax forms to be included with the annual T1 forms.

Those who support the highway would receive tax form "A" and pay a proportionately higher provincial tax rate than those who do not.

It would, I believe, give us all a kinder, gentler democracy instead of the version where 51% of the voters can legally bludgeon the other, unwilling, 49% into conformity.

The same technique could, of course, be widened to include all kinds of other politically contentious and divisive issues... like.... government funded abortions, religious vs. secular schools, firing tax funded missiles into places like Libya for humanitarian reasons and funding the CBC.
Monique Taylor No The NDP's first priority for reducing congestion is to make transit more accessible and affordable to Ontarians. Second, we believe we can make much more efficient use of highways - for example, by speeding up the planned implementation of high-occupancy vehicle lanes. There may be cases where the expansion and extension of highways is necessary, but all cost-effective and environmentally preferable options should be explored first - something we believe the Liberal government has failed to do. Historically, we have raised concern about planned highway expansions that threaten the Greenbelt, such as the Bradford by-pass, the GTA West highway to Guelph, and the Mid-Peninsula highway. We will continue to raise those concerns in the future.
Sophia Aggelonitis No We are committed to a transit system that helps move people and goods quickly and efficiently while balancing the needs of different regions.

When it comes to the Niagara-to-GTA corridor, two environmental assessments (Niagara-GTA and GTA-West) were put in place to consider all modes of transportation (transit, roads and rail) for the area. Both studies offer short- and medium-term recommendations that address the existing transportation challenges in the GTA-Niagara corridor.

Ultimately, our focus is on an integrated transit system that achieves long-term economic prosperity and environmental sustainability.
Tony Morris No The Green Party does not support the Mid-Penisula Highway. The Niagara Escarpment is a legislatively protected area of Ontario with some of the best agricultural land in Canada. To ensure the future sustainability of Ontario's food supply requires maintaining the integrity of farms in this area. Another highway would only increase the reliance on the automobile and add to an already congested region. Money for such an initiative would be better spent on increased rail and other public transit initiatives.
Niagara West-Glanbrook
CandidateBrief ResponseFull Response
Anthony Marco No The NDP's first priority for reducing congestion is to make transit more accessible and affordable to Ontarians. Second, we believe we can make much more efficient use of highways - for example, by speeding up the planned implementation of high-occupancy vehicle lanes. There may be cases where the expansion and extension of highways is necessary, but all cost-effective and environmentally preferable options should be explored first - something we believe the Liberal government has failed to do. Historically, we have raised concern about planned highway expansions that threaten the Greenbelt, such as the Bradford by-pass, the GTA West highway to Guelph, and the Mid-Peninsula highway. We will continue to raise those concerns in the future.
Geoff Peacock No I do not support the Mid-Peninsula Highway. I don't think that current traffic levels are high enough and can't be dealt with in another way that we need to rip apart precious farm land and wildlife habitat to build a multi billion dollar road that will take 8+ years to complete.
Tim Hudak Yes As part of our plan, an Ontario PC government will invest in the Niagara to GTA Highway Corridor. We have chosen this option because it will create jobs and serve as an artery for trade, tourism, investment an safer travel. In contrast, Dalton McGuinty has proposed to widen the QEW, which would require paving over sensitive tender fruit farmlands and would have a greater impact on ground water.

Response Summary (top)

Brief ResponseCount% of Total
Yes29.5%
No1676.2%
Maybe314.3%

21 Candidates Have Not Responded (top)

Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale
Donna Skelly
Peter Melanson
Rick Gundermann
Hamilton Centre
Anthony Gracey
Don Sheppard
Donna Tiqui-Shebib
Robert Szajkowski
Steven Passmore
Hamilton East-Stoney Creek
Gregg Pattinson
Nancy Fiorentino
Philip Doucette
Silas Khokar
Hamilton Mountain
Brian Goodwin
Geordie Elms
Jim Enos
Trevor Pettit
Niagara West-Glanbrook
Gerry Augustine
Katie Trombetta
Marty Poos
Meredith Cross
Rob Wienhold